Appeal No. 2001-2086
Application No. 09/012,152
It is not understood how simply not contacting the wall renders
the additional conveying member effective only over part of the
cross-section of the tube. While appellants also maintain that
it is clear from the specification that the additional conveying
member "does not have the 'wall-sweeping' feature of the elements
of the axial conveyor" (page 6 of principal brief, penultimate
paragraph), even if this were so, and the specification makes no
such statement, we do not find that the claim language adequately
defines the metes and bounds, or scope, of the requirement that
the additional conveying member is "effective only over a part of
the cross-section of the conveying tube." Appellants have not
refuted the examiner's reasoning that a rotating element, such as
element 15 of specification Figure 5, would be effective in
moving fluids over the entire cross-section of the tube although,
perhaps, not as efficiently as a larger rotating element.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, description requirement. It is the
examiner's position that there is not descriptive support for the
claimed "lip," inasmuch as appellants have conceded that there is
a difference in scope between the term "lip" and the term "edge,"
originally found in the present specification and claims.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007